This is science

[Sayvara]

Well seeing as you pretty much just said everyone was wrong this is what is true theres nothing to really talk about.

The problem with being a good scientist: noone ever talks about you.

The ones that get all the attention are the ranting, rambling vague ones that are wrong... like Intelligent Designers, 9/11-Truthers, Anti-vaccine nuts, mobile phone scaremongers, anti-nuclear power hippies, GMO opponents and their ilk.

/S

No ones going to talk about you because you gave zero discussion value to this thread.

Yes, thats' why I said... the problem with being right is that there is nothing to discuss.

Why do you think religion is such a heated and conflict-causing subject?

/S

 

[Sayvara]

You know what: it pisses off scientists and engineers that people don't give a shit what we do but are so incredibly happy to use the results and thank 'Science'.

Is it ignorant to expect you to understand the basics of what you want to discuss or do you just think that it's not worth discussing, and showing some respect for, something that means you're well fed, healthy, entertained, have more leisure time than *any* previous generation and have a chance of living until you're more than a century old?

Hey, what pisses us off even more is when people go "Phah... science... science doesn't know everything anyway, so they are all wrong. I know what's really going on. Why? Because I have seen things with my own eyes!!".

Translation: "I'm a prejudiced fart".

/S

 

[Czargent Sane]

did you really just use the word "faithers"? you do realize that there is already a word to be used in that tense its called "faithful". that is the equivilent of calling scientists "sciencers" which would actually be kind of cool, it makes them sound like wizards or something.

and why must everyone do the whole " science vs faith" thing? its wearying.

also; why does everyone hate intelligent design so much? I mean specifically. I've looked into it, and intelligent design just says that something created the universe. thats it. it agrees with all accepted scientific fact, and says that they (the facts) were on purpose.

 

[Sayvara]

I thought science being a method was common sense.

See the post just above yours... "I have common sense" is another one of those blanket arguments that prejudiced farts use to not have to argue their standpoint and in that process be proven wrong.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

Double-post, sorry.

/S

 

[Haunted Serenity]

Or no one caring enough to post construictively... I'm sorry, I took science in highschool.
I took it JUST INCASE I wanted to go into science in College. After week 1 I vowed never again. Sorry, I didn't finish your post... I got past the picture though

Come up with ACTUALY DISCUSSION VALUE (because the forums are NOT a fucking classroom) and we'll talk...

I read it. Interesting but it killed my day...it's only 9:30am. My day NOOOOOOOOOO.

I like how the arrows on the picture go both ways on each step almost. Behold repeats! We can do the same test 30 times to make sure we get the same result. Lets test if reading this again kills my day again and i shall report.

*_*......it does.

Seriously though it's interesting but what should we discuss it is fact? how do argue this or talk about whats clearly there.

 

[Criv]

From this sentence we can describe science as a method. A method which we use to get theories. I'm agreeing with you so I don't understand what you're trying put across to me here.

I think it's more of a 'common sense isn't common' thing than a putdown mate. ie. One man's common sense is gibberish to another

 

[The Procrastinated End]

No ones going to talk about you because you gave zero discussion value to this thread.

I really hope you're kidding mate.

If you want discussion: how about you read the thread that sparked this, then read Sayvara's (quite good) explanation of what the scientific method is again, then come back and ask why so few people have an understanding of what science is?

You know what: it pisses off scientists and engineers that people don't give a shit what we do but are so incredibly happy to use the results and thank 'Science'.

Someone else sparked a discussion on science already - is it so wrong to expect you to understand the basic tenet of what you want to discuss?

Or do you just think that it's not worth discussing, and showing a little respect for, a concept that means you're well fed, healthy, entertained, have more leisure time than *any* previous generation and have a chance of living until you're more than a century old?

Did I say I didn't care about what scientists do or that I didn't know what the scientific method was? No.
All I said (and Sayvara responded to my statement with some actual logic to it by the way) was that theres not much discussion in saying this is what science really is and that the other people were wrong.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Or no one caring enough to post construictively... I'm sorry, I took science in highschool.
I took it JUST INCASE I wanted to go into science in College. After week 1 I vowed never again. Sorry, I didn't finish your post... I got past the picture though

Come up with ACTUALY DISCUSSION VALUE (because the forums are NOT a fucking classroom) and we'll talk...

I read it. Interesting but it killed my day...it's only 9:30am. My day NOOOOOOOOOO.

I like how the arrows on the picture go both ways on each step almost. Behold repeats! We can do the same test 30 times to make sure we get the same result. Lets test if reading this again kills my day again and i shall report.

*_*......it does.

Seriously though it's interesting but what should we discuss it is fact? how do argue this or talk about whats clearly there.

Well, I'm saying that there is no way to discuss this... She tried to turn the forum into a class room... Atleast she cannot kill the forums!

 

[Sayvara]

and why must everyone do the whole " science vs faith" thing?

Because it is important perbaps the most important issue of the third millenium!

After thousands of years we have finally found and developed a method with which we can find out facts and theories which we don't have to argue over. Everyone can use the scientific method to settle the matter once and for all. It's a method that does not require leaps of faith, which are inherently troublesome because they depend on which leap of faith you take, which leads to conflict and strife.

That's why...

did you really just use the word "faithers"?

Aye?

you do realize that there is already a word to be used in that tense its called "faithful". that is the equivilent of calling scientists "sciencers" which would actually be kind of cool, it makes them sound like wizards or something.

I think that "believers" is more appropriate.

also; why does everyone hate intelligent design so much?

Because...

1) It is a hypothesis that is not scientifically testable, i.e. utterly useless and of no value to us.
2) Despite being no better than for instance the Flat Earth hypothesis it is still being pushed into schools and public conscience as it it was a scientifically peer reviewed theory that stands up to scrutiny and should be concidered.
3) It is a deception where faithers/believers of certain religious factions try to act as if their faith is something we should base our lives on and thus try to bully their way ahead of the crowd.

That's why...

/S

 

[Sayvara]

Ahem.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you thank you!

I am sick and tired of people not knowing jack shit about the scientific method and what it entails, can we maybe have this stickied?

Thank you for the praise.

Please bookmark the direct link to the post and use it if ever you have to slap someone over the face whith what science is. That's even better than stickying it.

/S

 

[chaos order]

wow nvr though id see this chart on this site... lol ive seen that bloody chart since high school biology straight into my biology labs in university.

 

[Kragg]

Aaaand..... you just gave us a class of science.

Thanks. So, where's the discussion?

haha finally learning the rules ;D

also OP, stop signing your posts ...

/K

 

[Criv]

Did I say I didn't care about what scientists do or that I didn't know what the scientific method was? No.
All I said (and Sayvara responded to my statement with some actual logic to it by the way) was that theres not much discussion in saying this is what science really is and that the other people were wrong.

Wasn't personal, you just had the misfortune to be the last post when I started posting. Look at the other thread mate. Plenty of discussion value there - but there's quite a lot of signal to noise ratio due to people not actually knowing what they're talking about. Sometimes for a good discussion, you need to take a step back and explain the basics or else you may as well be just pissing into the wind for all the good it'll do.

 

[Sayvara]

From this sentence we can describe science as a method. A method which we use to get theories. I'm agreeing with you so I don't understand what you're trying put across to me here.

I think it's more of a 'common sense isn't common' thing than a putdown mate. ie. One man's common sense is gibberish to another

Pretty much what Criv just said.

"Common sense" is a fuzzy term which for some reason is "good" and "right"... but noone can say what "common sense" actually is. It's used as a label which you stick to your own argument and use that to say "I'm right because I have common sense".

Other such fuzzy labels which are being used that way are "natural"/"unnatural", "normal", "integrity", "family values", "morals" and so forth.

/S

 

[Faerun]

OP, mind explaining how magnets work?

I saw this post, and just had to register and reply.

The following picture is from abtrusegoose.com

Have fun with it!
Oh, and thanks to the OP for posting this topic. I myself am a scientist, always fun reading about it :]

 

[Haunted Serenity]

Or no one caring enough to post construictively... I'm sorry, I took science in highschool.
I took it JUST INCASE I wanted to go into science in College. After week 1 I vowed never again. Sorry, I didn't finish your post... I got past the picture though

Come up with ACTUALY DISCUSSION VALUE (because the forums are NOT a fucking classroom) and we'll talk...

I read it. Interesting but it killed my day...it's only 9:30am. My day NOOOOOOOOOO.

I like how the arrows on the picture go both ways on each step almost. Behold repeats! We can do the same test 30 times to make sure we get the same result. Lets test if reading this again kills my day again and i shall report.

*_*......it does.

Seriously though it's interesting but what should we discuss it is fact? how do argue this or talk about whats clearly there.

Well, I'm saying that there is no way to discuss this... She tried to turn the forum into a class room... Atleast she cannot kill the forums!

Forum delivered tactical nuclear warheads. FDTNW. I'm condusting scientific tests now with them. Alas i need to keep retesting the results...

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Yes, a basic explanation of the scientific process.

Pretty simple to understand and something that I would have hoped people would know as common knowledge... but alas... people disappoint me, can't wait to replace their low-tier jobs with machinery.

 

[Sayvara]

I don't really like the analogy too much with the whole youtube slant but I gets the idea across.

Why not?

Reporting and publishing your data and your findings and is a very important part of science. That is the part that lets others say "Hm... hold on while I look this over". That's what is known as Peer Review.

In the peer review everyone else can examine your claims and your data, and draw their own conclusion. If their conclusion matches yours... then it's all peachy. But if they come to a different conclusion... then you're in trouble.

A simple example of this: anti-nuclear hippies say a german report says kids get cancer around nuclear power plants [http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-station-causing-cancer-leukemia], the so called "KiKK study". In this case the conclusion is "Kids get cancer from NPP's". The data they are using is the KiKK study. (*)

But is their conclusion correct? To find that out, we read the data, and draw our own conclusion. Does the data support the conclusion the anti-nukes drew?

As it turned out: hell no [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/02/05/study-says-german-nuclear-power-causes-child-cancer-or-does-it/]

When you read the study you find that the conclusions they made were that whatever caused their data to appear like there was a correlation between child cancer and NPP's, it wasn't the nuclear power plants's themselves. Bad data, random chance and/or other cancer-causeing factors were much more likely.

In other words: the anti-nukers failed their peer review and their claim/hypothesis is therefore not validated by the scientific method... at least not with that data.

/S

(*) Do notice the recursiveness in this: the study in itself also has data, and a conclusion

 

[Czargent Sane]

and why must everyone do the whole " science vs faith" thing?

Because it is important perbaps the most important issue of the third millenium!

After thousands of years we have finally found and developed a method with which we can find out facts and theories which we don't have to argue over. Everyone can use the scientific method to settle the matter once and for all. It's a method that does not require leaps of faith, which are inherently troublesome because they depend on which leap of faith you take, which leads to conflict and strife.

That's why...

did you really just use the word "faithers"?

Aye?

you do realize that there is already a word to be used in that tense its called "faithful". that is the equivilent of calling scientists "sciencers" which would actually be kind of cool, it makes them sound like wizards or something.

I think that "believers" is more appropriate.

also; why does everyone hate intelligent design so much?

Because...

1) It is a hypothesis that is not scientifically testable, i.e. utterly useless and of no value to us.
2) Despite being no better than for instance the Flat Earth hypothesis it is still being pushed into schools and public conscience as it it was a scientifically peer reviewed theory that stands up to scrutiny and should be concidered.
3) It is a deception where faithers/believers of certain religious factions try to act as if their faith is something we should base our lives on and thus try to bully their way ahead of the crowd.

That's why...

/S

no, it really isnt, faith does not cause as much strife as some would like to believe. those with evil in their hearts are all to quick to shield themselves behind an illusion of faith.

irrelevant, because you did not use the word believers, you used the word faithers.

instead of quoting part of my questions, you should quote them in entirety. the flat earth theory ignored scientific data. intelligent design accepts any and all scientific data.
is it not the function of faith to provide something on which to base one's life on? in the modern world, faith is rarely used to explain things, and when it is it is a primitive and perverse way of using it. faith provides man with purpose, hope, things not provided from any other source. faith is the expression of human purpose.